* Justice Charanjit Jalwar stated that GDS
are Civil Servants and they are Central Govt. Employees.

* Talwar Committee recommended to the Govt.
that GDS should be included in Pay Commission and no separate committee should
be appointed in future.

* Govt. appointed 7th Pay Commission for
Central Govt. Employees.

* NFPE & AIPEU-GDS (NFPE) says GDS are
part of Central Govt. Employees and they should be included in 7th CPC itself.

* Confederation of Central Govt. Employees
& Workers says that GDS are part of Central Govt. Employees and they should
be incuded in 7th CPC itself.

* JCM National Council (staff side)
orgisastions including Railway & Defence Federations says GDS are part of
Central Govt. Employees and they should be included in 7th CPC itself.

* But
recognised GDS union of Shri. Mahadevaiah accepted the Govt. stand that GDS are
not part of Central Govt. Employees and hence he is demanding seperate
committee for GDS. He don’t want GDS to
be included in 7th CPC. His main demand
in the charter of demandS is seperate committee for GDS .

* NFPE & AIPEU-GDS (NFPE) declared joint
indefinite strike under the banner of JCA from 2015 May 6th for inclusion of
GDS in 7th CPC.

* FNPO & NUGDS also declared joint
indefinite strike under the banner of JCA from 2015 May 6th for inclusion of
GDS in 7th CPC.

& Confederation, Railways & Defence
Federations organised joint National Convention of entire JCM staff side
orgnisations and decided to organise massive Parliament March in April 2015 to
declare indefinite strike of entire Central Govt. Employees. Inclusion of GDS in 7th CPC is included in
the charter of demands as number one demand.

Recognised
GDS union of Shri Mahadevaiah don’t want joint strike of GDS & regular
employees. He always declares fragmented
strike to torpedo the unity of GDS and regulr employees. He is desperately trying to retain his
control over GDS. He has written to the
Govt. not to allow NFPE & FNPO to discuss GDS issues. Govt. also wants to divide GDS and Regular
employees so that they can easily deny the legitimate demands of the GDS
including Civil Servant status and all benefits of regular employees.

Let
us organise Joint indefinite Strike of five LAkhs GDS & Regular employees
from 2015 May 6th under the banner of Postal Joint Council of Action (NFPE,
FNPO, AIPEU-GDS (NFPE) & NUGDS) demanding inclusion of GDS in 7th CPC & grant of all benefits of regular employees to GDS also.

Recognised
GDS union of Mahadevaiah is against filing case in Supreme Court for grant of Civil Servant status and all
benefits of regular employees to GDS.
NFPE & AIPEU-GDS (NFPE) has filed a Writ Petition in Supreme Court
and after the preliminary hearing Supreme Court transferred the case to Delhi
High Court. The next hearing of the case
in Delhi High Court is on 4th February, 2015.

But Shri. Mahadevaiah
had filed a case in the Karnataka High Court for his own benefit requesting to
grant Foreign Service benefits to him.
(Writ Petition No.24106/2005 (S.CAT).

When he has filed Writ Petition in High Court
for his own benefit it is perfectly alright, but when NFPE & AIPEU-GDS
(NFPE) filed case in Supreme Court for the benefit of 2.76 lakhs GDS he is ridiculing
it and opposing it.

P.Panduranga
Rao R.N.Parashar

General Secretry. Secretary
General,

AIPEU-GDS(NFPE) NFPE.

(NB: Shri.Mahadevaiah has published in December 2014 a circular in his
website in which again he has used filthy and unparliamentary language against
the NFPE leadership. He has called the
leadership of NFPE as “Cowards” “impotent” and “liars”. NFPE & AIPEU-GDS (NFPE) don’t want to
stoop to the level of Shri. Mahadevaiah by replying him using such indecent and
low-level third-rate language in our writeups).

The eligibility for appearing for the SB Aptitude test is reduced from 5 years to one year vide SB order No. 16/2011 dated 23.08.2011. The principal SB order No. 26/89 issued vide DG Posts letter No. 2-3/86-SB dated 27.04.1989, it is prescribed that the SB Allowance will be admissible only to those Postal Assistants who are selected to be posted in SB Branch having at least 5 years of service with good record and pass in the aptitude test/such other test as may be prescribed and the allowance will be paid for the period they actually work in the SB Branch.

Subsequently vide SB order No. 16/2011 issued vide Directorate letter No. 113-07/2010-SB dated 23.08.2011, the eligibility for appearing in the SB Aptitude test is reduced to one year and many young Postal Assistants are now qualified and they are denied for grant of SB Allowance s the principal SB order No. 26/89 requires a revision in consonance with the subsequent SB order No. 16/2011.

Hence it is requested to cause suitable clarification allowing the drawal of SB Allowance to the officials qualified irrespective of their service and render justice at the earliest.

Declaration of Assets and Liabilities by Public servants under section
44 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 - extension of last date for filing
of revised returns by public servants (Click the link below for
details)

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

CAN’T
RECOVER EXCESS SALARY PAID TO CLASS III, IV STAFF

SUPREME
COURT

Press News by TOI

NEW DELHI:
Recovery of excess amount paid to Class-III and Class-IV employees due to
employer's mistake is not permissible in law, the Supreme Court has ruled
saying that it would cause extremely harsh consequences to them who are totally
dependent on their wages to run their family.

The apex
court said employees of lower rung service spend their entire earning in the
upkeep and welfare of their family, and if such excess payment is allowed to be
recovered from them, it would cause them far more hardship, than the reciprocal
gains to the employer.

A bench of
JS Khehar and Arun Mishra also directed that an employer cannot recover excess
amount in case of a retired employee or one who is to retire within one year
and where recovery process is initiated five years after excess payment.

"We
are therefore satisfied in concluding, that such recovery from employees
belonging to the lower rungs (i.e., Class-III and Class-IV - sometimes denoted
as Group 'C' and Group 'D') of service, should not be subjected to the ordeal
of any recovery, even though they were beneficiaries of receiving higher
emoluments, than were due to them. Such recovery would be iniquitous and
arbitrary and therefore would also breach the mandate contained in Article 14
of the Constitution," Justice Khehar, who wrote the judgment said.

It said
that the employer's right to recover has to compared, with the effect of the
recovery on the concerned employee and if the effect of the recovery from the
employee would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted,
than the corresponding right of the employer, which would then make it
iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery.

"In such a situation, the employee's right would
outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover,"
the bench said.

The bench
passed the order on a petition filed by Punjab government challenging Punjab
and Haryana high court order restraining it to recover the excess amount paid
by mistake to numerous employees over the years.

It said we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following
few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in
law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV
service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due
to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been
made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is
issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been
required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly,
even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior
post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or
harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable
balance of the employer's right to recover.

The court
said a government employee is primarily dependent on his wages, and such
deduction from salary should not be allowed which would make it difficult for
the employee to provide for the needs of his family and any recovery must be
done within five years.

In this
case, the employees were given monetary benefits in excess of their entitlement
due to a mistake committed by a concerned competent authority, in determining
the emoluments payable to them.

Friday, December 19, 2014

There is no proposal under consideration of Government
to reduce the retirement age from 60 to 58 years for its employees.

The retirement age for Central
Government employees was revised from 58 to 60 years in 1997 on the basis of
recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission.

The Centre’s total wages and salaries
bill for its employees for the year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 is Rs.
85,963.50 crore, Rs. 92,264.88 crore and Rs. 1,04,759.71 crore, respectively.

This was stated by the Minister of
State for Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Dr. Jitendra Singh in
a written reply to Sardar Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Dr. T Subbarami Reddy and
Smt. Ambika Soni in Rajya Sabha, today.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

RAJYA SABHA QUESTION ON 7th PAY COMMISSION

Will the Minister of FINANCE be pleased to satate :-a) the details of meetings, the 7th Pay Commission has taken so far and the items/issues discussed till date;

b) the States, visited, by the Commission if any till date and the States which the Commission proposes to visit;

c) whether the Commission proposes to take the views of the State Governments as regards their pay-scales since invariably, most of the States adopt the Central Pay Commission reports;

d) whether Commission proposes to submit any interim report;

e) whether the Commission proposes to make any recommendations to bring in financial transparency; andf) if so, the details thereof?

ANSWER

SHRI JAYANT SINHAMINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(a)&(b): The 7th Central Pay Commission is required to make its recommendations on its Terms of Reference. Also, the Commission is to devise its own procedure. The Commission’s Terms of Reference do not enjoin upon it to keep the Government updated on its functioning and the procedure being followed by it during the course of its deliberations.

(c ): The Terms of Reference of the Commission provide that the Commission will make its recommendations, keeping in view, inter alia, the likely impact of the recommendations on the finances of the State Governments, which usually adopt the recommendations with some modifications.

(d)to(f): The Commission is required to submit its report on its Terms of Reference. However, no Report, including any interim one, has so far been submitted by the Commission.

A meeting of Postal JCA consisting NFPE, FNPO, AIPE Union GDS (NFPE)
and NUGDS was held at NFPE office, North Avenue, Post Office Building, New
Delhi on 03.12.2014. All General Secretaries of NFPE, FNPO and GDS Unions
attended the meeting. Com. M. Krishnan Ex. Secretary General NFPE and Secretary
General Confederation was also present.

After detailed discussions the following decisions were taken:

1. Indefinite strike will be organized from 6th May,
2015.

2. Intensive campaign programme will be launched by the JCA
leaders.

3. JCA will be formed in all the circles.
The following leaders of JCA are authorized for formation of Circle JCA and
this work should be completed before 31st Jan-2015: